Historic normalcy

Undoubtedly, we are living through a historically significant time. But for all the talk of how Barack Obama has changed the electoral map, he really hasn't. Is New England any less a bastion of the Democratic Party? Is the Deep South any less the stalwart of the Republican Party? Hardly.

Barack Obama's 349 electoral votes (NC and Mo are still not designated) surely dwarfs the Bush wins of 286 in 2004 and 271 in 2000. But Bill Clinton won with 379 in 1996 and 370 in 1992. GHW Bush won more than 400, as did Reagan in his first victory (his re-election brought him over 500 electoral votes. In fact, other than our current President, only Jimmy Carter has been elected with fewer than 300 electoral votes since Woodrow Wilson won re-election in 1916. What we have is a return to electoral normalcy, not a revolution.

Comparing Obama and Clinton, we see an actual hardening of geographical lines. Indiana and Virginia might have been reliably Republican, but they were virtually awash in a sea of blue in the 1990s. As Obama moved Virginia blue, locking up the Middle Atlantic states, Kentucky and Tennessee were so reliably red that they were not even contested at the top of the ticket. Indiana moved to the Democratic column, but Arkansas and Louisiana moved the other way.

The Southwest? Well Clinton carried New Mexico both times. He lost Arizona in '92, but carried it in '96. In the Mountain states of Colorado and Montana, Clinton reversed that pattern - carrying the in '92 and losing them in '96. Obama carried New Mexico and Colorado and made a run at Arizona and Montana before losing them.

Even as we wait for North Carolina and Missouri, we need to remember that Missouri voted for Clinton twice. So we are left looking at very little change, from the electoral college perspective.

Nor, I believe, have we seen a seismic shift in ideology. In economic policy, Obama has sounded as if he is somewhere between Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton - perhaps not far from where George H.W. Bush was when he broke his famous "read my lips" pledge and raised the marginal tax rate about three points in 1990. Joe Biden's contention that progressive taxation is patriotic is a much more liberal argument than Obama's contention that targeted tax cuts and refundable tax credits will lead to economic growth. And when push came to shove, it was Obama's argument that was moved to the fore while Biden was, according to some, "muzzled".

Even in Congress, the landslide is nothing more than a loss of Republican gains in the 90s. When Bill Clinton took his oath of office, there were 57 Democratic Senators - when all the dust settles, Obama will likely have 56. Bill Clinton had 267 Democrats in the House, Obama will likely come in about ten less than that.

The change is palpable, but it is not unprecedented. It only seems that way because it has been so long since we have had anything close to normal. Bill Clinton was hamstrung by a virulently oppositional razor-thin majority that redefined his time in office. George W. Bush held a unified government for only four years (2002-6), but the thin minorities tried to implement such a radical agenda that it was repudiated. Rather than play ball when he lost his majority in Congress, as Clinton did, Bush dug in.

We now have, in Barack Obama, a historical figure who has a traditional governing coalition. It remains to be seen if he can change politics in Washington. But we can say at this point that he really didn't change much in how he got there.